This paper explores an experience of inclusion in research and relationships.  In the beginning it was a doctoral study exploring Career Guidance and Disability, but the resultant learning journey was more about inclusion; and moreover contemporary inclusive researching (Quirke & Mc Guckin, C. 2018, 2019, 2021).

 In the most part, inclusion in education is a focus on a tangible product, access or curriculum design – approaches that are often framed by definitive check lists.  Accommodation by way of support or change is more-often a reaction – a reaction to exclusion.  Universal Design (UD), based on 7 principles is more focused on inclusion from the beginning for the widest diversity of people – insisting that the approach is adaptable and flexible as it engages (Storey et al, 1998). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) – UD applied in the learning environment demands a change in relationships. (Bowe, 2000; McGuire, 2014)

In research, inclusion is considered most in terms of vulnerability and positionality – a traditional view.  However, inclusion is also about recognising value in relationships.  The relationships are easily identified when the Bronfenbrenner ecosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) is applied to a research project, together with a UD mindset. To design for inclusion necessitated constantly re-evaluating relationships and moreover – taking ownership without taking the power – with consideration to ethical practice.  

Over the past few years there was a lot of change.  Ethics and research – we appreciate that ‘Ethics as Process’(Ramcharan & Cutcliffe, 2001)  reflects the reality that fieldwork may need to be subtly amended in response to the contextual and environmental changes for the proposed research that has been approved.   This process resembles the notion of inflight thinking (O’Síoráin, Mc Guckin, & Carr-Fanning., 2021) and enables changes to fieldwork  that are responsive, as long as any changes remain within the sphere of the ethos.  In a similar guise, we found we needed to have an ‘inclusion as process’ as an addendum to an ‘ethics as process’ approach, if the research was to engage in a meaningful way.  Afterall, we could and should not expect ourselves as researchers to stay static no more than we expect the research environment to stay static. Ultimately the result was the addition of a contemporary inclusive research as process– ‘Inclusion as Process’ (Quirke, Mc Guckin & McCarthy. 2022) that will support research seeking to be actively engaged in the changing world.  

The result for the doctorate was an inclusive research project where the researcher and the research participants could engage despite unforeseen challenges.   There was learning in relation to ‘Career Guidance and Disability’ but moreover  this research journey involved the ongoing need to change in terms of ontological positioning- due to continued reflexivity and positionality as the research develops and understanding develops. It is this outcome that this paper will explore as it offers credible opportunity for educational research and engagement in line with the inclusion philosophy of the UN SDG.s going forward. (United Nations, 2015.).

The research objective was to explore disability and relationships in career guidance (CEDEFOP, 1996). The research took place at a time the pandemic was unfolding and resulted in the researcher constantly re-evaluating the act of researching and exploring inclusion as a research method. Some key factors that were re-evaluated and explored deeply included - Ethics - Online engagement - Language and terminology - Access + Digital Literacy - Data – what it is and what it needs to be - Positionality - Reflexivity A theoretical framework influenced by Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) a Universal Design approach (Rose & Meyer, 2006) and Freire’s (Freire, 1996) discourse on empowerment was developed and allowed a deep consideration of inclusion and resulted in the method ‘Inclusion as Process’ (Quirke, Mc Guckin & McCarthy. 2022) The data was collected from 2 studies 1) learners with a disability and 2) a wider Delphi study. The first study involved online qualitative interviews. While the intention had been to offer online as an accessibility option; due to Covid19, online was the only option. Ethical approval had been granted as the data collection had been designed with accessibility and inclusion to the forefront. However, moving to an online platform did not necessarily insure an inclusive approach and the researcher had to address all elements of online engagement to ensure inclusion. This included consideration of language, tone, timing, platform, access to IT etc. These factors added to the research – as the research was constantly challenged in how it broadly understood ‘inclusion’. The second study a Delphi Study similarly involved a deep consideration at all stages of engagement. The result was recognising the balance of power in inclusion – notably in the act of researching. It became obvious as the pandemic and research unfolded and the relationships across the microsystems of the research were observed; that engagement could proceed in an ethical and inclusive manner - due to the methodology developed. The design incorporated a bioecological, a Universal Design approach, seeking to continuously empower (Freire, 1996), resulted in an elevated view of inclusion in research and researching. In essence, while the research project set out to explore Career Guidance and Disability, the method recognised the influences of inclusion in the wider ecology of research. This paper will share how one learning journey resulted in another. Such is the power educational research can offer as we face challenges in todays world.

The power in relationships was a reoccurring theme as the research unfolded. The hidden and often ignored power that so many professionals take for granted – but can lead to unconscious exclusions and barriers. There is a power in education research – particularly if we consider the need to include new voice and influence of global realities. Future focus of educational research will necessitate a shift in thinking about inclusion as we engage with new voices in new places in new ways. To stay current the contemporary educational researcher has to have a deeper appreciation of the impact they have on the research – influenced by approach taken to the ethics, method, data collection and analysis . The very approach taken has the power to include or exclude voice, feeling and experience. Only by acknowledging and redesigning to allow this power to be identified and recognised in an ethical manner – did the resulting method emerge from this doctoral journey. This is not without challenges in a challenging world. But the benefit is new learning, new voice and a feeling of authentic and democratic engagement about not just the research question but moreover about the place of inclusion in research. But we can only expand the debate on inclusion if we acknowledge our power in research and shape our investigations with consideration for the work we seek to engage with. This is both on a practical and academic level. The global challenge means that educational researchers will have to develop an ‘Inclusion Literacy’ as they adopt an ‘Inclusion as Process’ approach (Quirke, Mc Guckin & McCarthy. 2022).

Bowe, F. G. (2000). Universal design in education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development Cambridge. MA: Harvard. CEDEFOP (2009) Professionalising Career Guidance: Practitioner Competences and Qualification Routes in Europe http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/5193_ en.pdf Available in English and German Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York: Continuum. McGuire, J. M. (2014). Universally Accessible Instruction: Oxymoron or Opportunity?. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4), 387-398. Meyer A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in the computer age. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. O’Síoráin, C. A., Mc Guckin, C., & Carr-Fanning, K. (2021). Well that's another fine mess you got me into: The jargon of research (how do we translate this for the participant with additional needs?). In Thinking Critically and Ethically About Research for Education (pp. 40-53). Routledge. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2018). Learning from the past . . . How career guidance might learn from inclusive education. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER): “Inclusion and Exclusion, Resources for Educational Research”, The Free University Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy, 3rd - 4thSeptember, 2018. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2019). Career guidance needs to learn from ‘disability’ if it is to embrace an uncertain future . . . European Conference on Educational Research (ECER): “Education in an. Era of Risk - The Role of Educational Research for the Future”, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 3rd - 6th September, 2019. Quirke, M., & Mc Guckin, C. (2021). "Time To Rethink and Reconnect: If we are to embrace the 'Inclusion' of the Future....". European Conference on Educational Research (ECER): ““Education and Society: expectations, prescriptions, reconciliations”, Universität Hamburg, Geneva (online), 2nd- 6th September, 2019. Quirke, Mc Guckin & McCarthy. (2022). How to adopt an “Inclusion as Process” approach and navigate ethical challenges in research. SAGE Research Method Cases Ramcharan, P., & Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: The “ethics as process” model. Health and Social Care, 9(6), 358-367. Rose, D.H., and Meyer, A., Eds. (2006). A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. (2001). Principles of universal design for instruction. Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design. United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: UN Publishing.